liam: More explanation that WCAG 2.0 is only
part of the document set. Be clear about what is and is not in WCAG 2.0

<judy> adding the following:

<judy> The confusion between the Intro page
& the whole WCAG 2.0 continues in the "Related Documents" subsection;
clarify there that "this document" refers to the whole set of WCAG 2.0 pages.
E.g., these are the things w/in WCAG 2.0, and then these are the things
outside of WCAG 2.0

<Zakim> shawn, you wanted to suggest
putting the comment about moving information (reference to the email) first
in our list of comments, since it's global

Conformance to WCAG 2.0

<shawn> ah, right

Judy: Issue of sample baselines... Not really
possible from WCAG WG.

Shawn: Sample baselines could be taken as
endorsement of accessibility or inaccessibility of specific technologies.

Judy: Recommends that Baselines could be set by
appropriate organizations.

<shawn> not in the /TR/ doc itself

Group: There are concerns about baselines being
abused. These need to be addressed in the "About Baselines".

<Zakim> Andrew, you wanted to still include
this comment, even if we recognize that it doesn't belong in the TR

Liam: The baseline should refer to the actual
audience not the perceived audience.

Wayne: In the TR there should be an attempt to
state the actual intent of baseline.

<judy> proposed comment:

<judy> 1. Each time EOWG discusses the
baseline concept, there are a number of concerns raised about potential
mis-uses of baseline, and people can think of a number of scenarios of
potential abuse. EOWG recommends adding a much clearer statement of the
intent of baseline into the WCAG 2.0 TR document, so that this can be
referenced in any debates about potential mis-uses or abuses of baseline.

<judy> proposed: In the discussion of
baseline and conformance, it seems that there is potential for misuse of
baseline [e.g. authors might be able to just declare their own level of
technology. The actual/potential audience, not just perceived/target audience
or what developers wish they could reply on, should define baseline.

<judy> EOWG recommends that the WCAG WG
re-consider the following strategies: to give guidance on what is a realistic
baseline for most Internet sites today, W3C should publish a
'reasonable/realistic' baseline recommended for a general audience, outside
of the WCAG 2.0 normative document, with an an explanation about why the
particular baseline is recommended; and it should update this recommended
baseline annually or periodically.

Comments on WCAG 2.0

See comments in the compiled documents.

<shawn> zaim, unmute me

<judy> proposed: 2. The definition for
assistive technology is difficult to understand because it gives the
restrictive before the general; also, it may be too restrictive, in
describing legacy assistive technologies (for instance, some screen readers
now are creating their own DOM separate from the mainstream browser. EOWG
recommends eliminating part (1) of the definition.

<judy> plus: (Note: We think that this
would work *because* your definition of user agent is broad enough to already
cover some of the functions of some assistive technologies.)

Checklist

<judy> The comparison table may be
extremely useful for some users of WCAG 2.0, but they may not initially
realize the various ways it can be helpful, or may misunderstand it as solely
as mapping table, or gap table, etc. EOWG recommends adding a few very brief
use-cases at the top, to highlight what this comparison table can be used
for. For example: moving forward from wcag 1.0 to wcag 2.0;